Home » Environment »Suburban Sprawl » Currently Reading:

The Lights of Sprawl on I-44

December 26, 2005 Environment, Suburban Sprawl 12 Comments

Thursday morning I was driving West on I-44 heading to Oklahoma for the holiday weekend. I left my house just past 5am so it was still dark as I left the region. I was amazed at all the lights from people heading East from places such as Pacific, Washington, St. Clair, Eureka, Union, and Sullivan.

I was over an hour away from downtown before the traffic volume decreased to a “normal” level. Where were all these people going I wondered to myself. Why did they live so far away from their workplace? Could they not afford anything closer or was this by choice.

I often hear people cite that they don’t want to live on top of each other as a reason for living out in the “country.” But then I see the subdivisions where they live. The lots are wide and the houses far apart but to get that big front yard the houses are set far back. The back deck overlooks the main road or the neighbors deck. I have more privacy in my small backyard.

Another reason often given is the kids. But to pay for this dream home in the “country” the parents have to work which can mean long commutes. The people I saw will likely spend close to two hours driving each and every day. That is equal to 21 days a year gone! How is that good for the kiddies?

MetroLink planners have been looking at stretching lines out near the I-270 loop although the low densities in those places make it questionable. Yet along I-44 construction work continues to widen the highway further and further West. Too many people and vehicles for the existing roads yet nowhere near enough people to consider a commuter rail line.

I suppose until gas prices go up we’ll continue to see the car lights along I-44.

– Steve

 

Currently there are "12 comments" on this Article:

  1. Rich & Lloyd says:

    Hi Steve,

    We also find it amazing the number folks that choose to drive 1-2 hours per day back to the “country”. We have a 15 minute commute to/from work…..maybe 20 on a bad day. Our little south city retreat is just fine for us. During the summer it’s probably more secluded then most “new” construction out “west”, “south” or “east” of STL. Just thought I’d add our .02
    Rich

     
  2. toby says:

    Those just-add-water houses in far county are actually a tad bit CLOSER together than some city lots.
    But, yes, the “get away from it all” excuse has not applied for almost a decade. Go west of 270 and it’s congested with traffic 18 hours a day, the stores and shops always crowded with battles for parking… You have to live in the city to get a little elbow room and some privacy. Not to mention TREES.
    Far County is like a golf course; few trees, midget shrubbery. In the city, we have miles of mature trees and plenty of parks to disappear in for nature moments.
    I get familie’s Far County reasons, but they are just false excuses at this point. A quick visual survey of the 2 areas shows a better quality of life in the city (as long as you don’t have school-age kids – ouch).
    But I do worry that Far County folks will eventually catch on, and move back to the city. While that would take care of school and useable housing stock issues, it would also make the city just as crowded and aggressive as the county now is. I’m a little spoiled at how good we have it in the city, and can throw little tantrums when that’s potentially threatened.

     
  3. rick says:

    People shouldn’t rule out the city for quality of life reasons if they have school-aged kids.

    The city can be good place for kids to grow up. Much of that is determined by family economic status rather than a city or suburban address.

    Low income familes in the ‘burbs have a lower quality of life too.

    I bet if you pick two families with kids and the same economic status, one city and one out-city, the in-city family has a better quality of life.

     
  4. Joe Frank says:

    This issue of whether families with children can have a good life in the City of St. Louis is a tricky question.

    Certainly, neighborhoods like Southampton, St. Louis Hills, etc. – solidly “middle-class” and mostly white – have lots of families with kids. Even places like Shaw, TGSouth and TGEast, though they have some problems, can be safe and fun places for kids.

    But in neighborhoods where you have the highest density of children in the population, like Benton Park West and Gravois Park or some places in North City, the grown-ups mostly don’t make a whole lot of money. And crime is still a significant concern. So, the children are often victimized, unfortunately, in many different ways.

    I have to admit, I’m not entirely sure I’d want to stay in my current house once we have kids. I like to believe it would be safe enough, but I’m not sure about that.

    And I probably wouldn’t want my kids to go to Lutheran or Catholic schools, although I am impressed at just how diverse St Frances Cabrini Academy is.

    So the remaining options would be finding and getting into a good charter school or magnet school (preferably), or ponying up the big $$ for New City or Forsyth. A long-distance “reverse commute” to a West County private school just seems like a bad idea.

    I am hopeful the regular public schools will see dramatic improvements. There are certainly many, many very dedicated parents, teachers, principals and students. Creg Williams and other administrators seem to have good ideas. But only time will tell.

     
  5. rick says:

    There’s a bunch of neighborhoods in the city that are good places to raise kids.

    In addition to the ones Joe mentioned, don’t forget the Hill, the Central West End, Skinker DeBaliviere, Soulard, North Point, Lindenwood, Dogtown, Bevo, Holly Hills, Boulevard Heights, Tilles, Kingshighway Hills, Lafayette Square, Botanical Heights, and the Gate District, just for a start.

    And there’s a mini-baby boom going on in Old North St. Louis.

    It seems the overriding issue is really more school choice than neighborhood quality of life.

    And there are lots of families in the suburbs who deal with the same decision.

     
  6. Becker says:

    There seem to be a lot of people who want to bury their face in the sand about places in the city that are “good places to raise kids.”

    The CWE? Bevo? Please.

    These are great neighborhoods to grab a beer in. Wonderful places to hangout or live if you are single or without children. But the idea that they are good places to raise children only holds true if you have very low standards for your children.

    Also we must remember that the majority of the area’s population will not stand to have their children educated in the city system. If you are an atheist or have other oppositions to parochial schools that leaves you with essentially no options in the city.

    It doesn’t matter how many duplexes are rehabbed if the school remain a joke.

     
  7. Brian says:

    Those seeking a secular education have the New City School as an option, albeit with tuition. And this school happens to be in the “grab-a-beer-in” CWE (DeBaliviere Place) neighborhood.

    Though Southwest City is known for its many Catholic and Lutheran options, it also is home to St. Louis Charter School, another secular yet free option.

    Despite Becker’s take, I think having many parks, cultural attractions and alternative school options make the City a strong choice for families. But the biggest plus for the City is that when you live closer to your work, you can spend less time commuting, freeing up time to spend with your kids.

     
  8. home body says:

    What do you have against the CWE and Bevo?

    The CWE is the most cosmopolitan neighborhood between Denver and Chicago, and thousands of Bosnians with children have made Bevo home.

    If you were a kid growing up these these days in the CWE, you could be just like those two kids growing up on that old TV show, “Family Affair”.

    The only thing missing would be “Mr. French”.

     
  9. M says:

    I don’t want to get into this same old argument with the worn out opinions of those who left the city, but these neighborhoods are fantastic places to raise kids. My kids will get a chance to experience real diversity in a real neighborhood, not the cookie cutter and stale experience a lot of kids in this region receive, much to their detriment, in my opinion, which is exactly that, my opinion. You have yours, but I completely disagree and tend to disagree with a majority of the people I meet here who “grew up” here and have their opinions, but didn’t grow up in the city, don’t live in the city, and really only frequent this place during a ballgame or like you said, when they want to grab a beer, so they really don’t have a leg to stand on.

    And I take offense that only those with low standards raise their kids in the city, as that is simply being naive about who lives here. My kids will receive a great education (because as parents we will be involved), yet have much different (i.e. better) views on the world and the many different cultures we live amongst with their more diverse upbringing than those out in the exurbs. To be blunt, they won’t be racist as many native St. Louisans are and have been raised to be. By living in the city, I consider myself to have higher standards for my children, as I do not want them to have to endure the stale life the suburbs provide.

    The schools are a problem, but looking in and complaining doesn’t fix them. It will take time, but I believe things are on the right track. Between charter, magnet and schools such as the new arts-based school in Soulard, there are options to utilize while the public system works out its problems.

    I don’t think the many families in my neighborhood (which many of them are from other cities, which explains why they like it here) would agree with you that they have low standards, and very few are catholic and utilize the catholic school system.

    The only people burying their heads in the sand are those looking in who want to complain about the city, but choose not to actually be a part of what improves the city, its neighborhoods and the school system. This is a great city to live in and grow up in, take time to actually experience it and you will see the same thing.

     
  10. Susan says:

    Having lived through exactly what is discussed here, I thought I would comment. My family lived in south city- Fox Park and Bevo namely- until we moved to Franklin County when I was in grade school. I moved back to the city in college, and in comparison I had a much happier childhood in the city. I know my parents were trying to do what was best for us, but growing up in Union was dull. My parents effectively got us away from crime, but alcohol and drugs seemed even worse in Franklin County. There was little to do for teenagers, so drinking and drugs were extremely common. In high school I knew many people who died from drunk driving or drug overdoses. And driving to FrankCo this weekend to visit my parents, I had the same reaction as Steve- why the hell would anyone want to live here? I curse all the way there and vow to never go back. Although I will say that Union and Washington used to have a quaint small town feel that they lack today. I could maybe see the attraction 20 years ago, but not anymore.

    The funny thing is my mother still accuses my dad’s family of having “white flight” since they abandoned Fox Park in the 1970s. My parents, and my mother’s sister’s family stayed until the 1980s, and they had intentions to stay. My aunt’s family moved to Webster, so when I was there this weekend I commented on some houses I had looked at in Fox Park and how great the neighborhood looks now. Hearing my uncle talk about leaving gave me a new understanding of the reasons behind it. They had been victims of crime, neighbors had windows shot out, another had her car windows broken in while she and her 3 kids were in the car. My brother had 3 bikes stolen, once right out of his hands. My uncle said “We did everything, called the cops, volunteered with the Neighborhood Assoc. The city did nothing to help us, and finally we said ‘what are we doing? The city isn’t paying us to do this. No one is helping us or making this easier'”. I don’t know that I would have done the same thing, but I can understand how difficult it would have been. The city now is much different than it was 20 years ago, and it is easy for me to think how great it all was as a child, but I wasn’t dealing with the problems my parents were facing as far as crime in their neighborhood. But I think raising a family in the city today would be much easier, and if I ever have children I’m not going anywhere.

     
  11. B.J. says:

    Steve, I am surprised you took an automobile to Oklahoma instead of either a bus or train. Isn’t that being a bit hypocritical?

    [REPLY – See http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000377.php for my response. – SLP]

     
  12. Joe Frank says:

    Sorry I knocked this thread so far off-topic.

    St. Louis Charter School is indeed a good option. Perhaps I was painting with too broad a brush. I would like to see more affordable, non-sectarian educational options in the City. And, for example, there is City Academy now in a beautiful new facility on North Kingshighway next to Mathews-Dickey. Its tuition is comparable to parochial schools. Several of the charter schools also sound like good options.

    Certainly, there are choices available for motivated parents. However, I remain concerned about crime, as I see so many children in my neighborhood becoming gang members, etc.

    When I do have children, I want them to have diverse experiences. But I do think a lot of responsible parents with limited financial means have reason to be concerned about living in neighborhoods and attending schools where gang and drug activity are visible and open.

    I love living in the City of St. Louis, and I love my diverse, historic, convenient, affordable Benton Park West neighborhood. However, access to quality schools (and for that matter, good jobs) is a problem for many of my neighbors and thus a concern for me.

    Too often, we forget that most people cannot afford to pay $11,000/year to send their children to New City School, even when financial aid programs are available.

    The best answer is better regular public schools. But unless and until that happens, people need to have more viable options.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe